Palestinian Quest for State Should Start With Elections

By the Editors -
Oct 23, 2012

Judging by the Palestinians’ first
election in six years, you wouldn’t know they yearn for self-
determination. Turnout for Oct. 20 municipal polls was just 55
percent. A third of towns and cities had no voting at all for
lack of sufficient candidates.

Hamas, the militant Islamic group that opposes peace with
Israel, declined to field candidates in the West Bank, which is
dominated by the rival Fatah organization. And Hamas refused to
hold balloting at all in the Gaza Strip, which it controls.

The Fatah-Hamas bifurcation is impeding more than just
local politics. It’s also hindering Palestinian progress toward
their goal of independence from Israel. Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas has turned to the United Nationsto elevate the
Palestinians’ status, but the world body can only do so
symbolically. To achieve self-determination, the Palestinians
will have to negotiate the terms of statehood with Israel. To do
that, they must speak as one.

The ensuing fragile Hamas compact with Fatah and Abbas,
who’d been elected president of the Palestinian Authority the
year before, succumbed to tensions that led to armed conflict
and the 2007 split in governance between the West Bank and Gaza
Strip.

The U.S. and others with an interest in a peace agreement
have looked to the moderate Abbas to deliver the Palestinians.
Yet without a mandate, he has neither the strength to impose his
red lines nor the confidence to bend on other issues. Even if
Abbas could seal a deal with Israel, he could enforce it only in
the West Bank.

Periodically, Hamas and Fatah have pledged to heal the
Palestinian schism with a power-sharing accord, but they’ve
failed to agree on terms each time. Neither group is eager to
give up the undiluted power it enjoys in the territory it
controls. For the same reason, the two haven’t delivered on
occasional talk of new elections.

Yet fresh elections offer a way out of the current
paralysis. If Palestinian negotiators had a unified leadership
behind them, they would have firm backing and clear direction.
They would be in a better position to deal with the Israeli
government that will emerge after elections in January.

Of course, a Palestinian election might produce mixed
results, with Fatah and Hamas forced to rule together. In such a
case, Fatah would stand a reasonable chance of softening Hamas’
position toward Israel. Otherwise, Israel might extend to the
West Bank the harsh sanctions it has imposed on the Gaza Strip,
which have contributed to deterioratingliving conditions there.

Although Hamas, which is committed to an Islamic state in
all of historic Palestine, says it won’t recognize or negotiate
with Israel, it could nevertheless allow its coalition partners
to do so. Having responsibility for the Gaza Strip has already
modulated the group. Rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel have
significantly declined in recent years; most of those that still
occur are launched by groups more radical than Hamas.

The various election scenarios are less significant than
the fact that Palestinian elections are overdue. The terms of
both the president and the legislature expired in 2010. That’s
the kind of detail that was easily overlooked before the Arab
Spring but not so easily now.

Both U.S. President Barack Obama and his Republican
challenger Mitt Romney say they are committed to Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations. Yet neither explains how to ensure a
legitimate Palestinian partner is capable of winning and making
concessions. A more constructive policy would be to encourage
the Palestinians to hold elections, to make clear the U.S. would
honor any result, and to lean on the Israelis to let voting take
place.

There’s no guarantee that the election of a new Palestinian
leadership would revive peace talks, but it does offer that
hope. In the absence of a fresh mandate, there’s very little of
that.